The standards and the Minority proposals

In 1999, Kansas gained worldwide notoriety when the state Board of Education
(BOE) passed creationist-influenced
science standards. These standards were replaced by solid science standards in
2001 when pro-science moderates regained the Board majority from the creationist
conservatives.

However, now in 2004-2005 the creationists have once again gained a 6-4
majority on the Board. In June 2004 the Board established a 25-member science
writing committee to revise the science standards. Eight of these committee
members (henceforth "the Minority") were creationists selected by the creationist
Board members. In December 2004 the Minority submitted a Minority report directly
to the Board (bypassing standard writing committee procedures) that contained a
hodge-podge of anti-evolutionary claims from the Intelligent Design movement.
At that time the Minority, led by Bill Harris, a managing director of the
Intelligent
Design Network (IDnet),
declared that lawyer John Calvert, also a managing director of IDnet
(but not a member of the committee) would represent the Minority as their
"counsel and spokesperson."

In January 2005 the writing committee, at the direction of the Board,
reviewed the Minority proposals. Following established voting procedures,
the writing committee rejected all but one of the Minority proposals.

Also in January a series of four public forums on the standards began.
These forums, held throughout the state, allowed members of the public the
opportunity to give short two-minute statements to members of the writing
committee. Drawn by the evolution/creation issue, almost a thousand people
attended these forums, and over 200 spoke. Although the speakers were split
about 50-50 on the issue, the ID advocates were not happy with the results
because

Most of the Minority supporters offered religious arguments for the
Minority proposals and against evolution, thus exposing the fact that
the primary motivations for support of the Minority position were religious
and not "scientific."

Many Minority supporters were young-earth creationists.

Virtually all the scientists who spoke supported evolution and rejected
the Minority arguments as unfounded.

A number of speakers stated that evolution did
not conflict with their
Christian beliefs.

One thing is obvious. This [the public forums process] is not
the proper process for deciding this issue. Focused hearings from experts are
desperately needed to cut through the misinformation, ridicule and half truths.

It would have helped to have more scientists on our side. If that had been the case we would have won the debate hands down. As it was, the objective observer would leave scratching his head.

We also need theologians who can rebut the argument of the Christian biology teacher that there is no conflict between evolution or naturalism and Christianity. We need someone to explain the two logical conflicts that allow Dawkins to claim to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that precludes a Christian from making the same claim.

Thus the idea for the "science hearings" was born.

The science hearings plan and the scientists' boycott

At the state BOE meeting on February 9, 2005 Board chairperson and creationist
leader Steve Abrams surprised the Board by
proposing that the Board appoint a
special subcommittee "to conduct hearings focused on the areas of
disagreement outlined by the majority and minority positions of the Science
Writing Committee." During the next three months the science hearings
subcommittee, composed of three creationist Board members
(Abrams,
Connie Morris, and
Kathy Martin),
closely collaborated with Calvert to establish the quasi-legal format for the
hearings. Their plan was for "each side," the Minority and the mainstream
science "Majority," to take three days to present the arguments for their
case.

However, the science community refused to play. At the March 8, 2005 BOE meeting,
Harry McDonald, president of
Kansas Citizens for Science, presented a
KCFS resolution calling
for all scientists to boycott the hearings. The resolution concluded by saying,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that KCFS calls on the entire science
and science education community of Kansas to refuse to participate in the
hearing proceedings. Science has its own validity and has made its position
on these matters perfectly clear and unambiguous. ID and other forms of
creationism aren't science. The specific proposals in the minority report
have been rejected by the writing committee and by the science community at
large. The science community should not put itself in the position of
participating in a rigged hearing where non-scientists will appear to sit in
judgment and find science lacking. Science should not give the anti-evolution
members of the board the veneer of respectability when they take their
predictable action. Let the board take responsibility for its actions without
dignifying those actions with the appearance of academic rigor.

During the next two months the Kansas Department of Education
(KSDE) searched
worldwide for a scientist to agree to coordinate the pro-science position.
They found no one who was willing to do so.

The statement of the position of the Coalition for Science made prior to
the hearings.

However, in April, 2005 a local pro-science Topeka lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray,
agreed to represent mainstream science at the hearings. In the meantime,
a coalition of organizations and individuals had formed in opposition to the
hearings . Irigonegaray quickly aligned himself with the
Coalition for Science.
He announced that he would not be defending science nor calling scientists to
testify, but would rather attempt to bring out the real political, educational,
legal and theological issues involved in the situation.

During this time Calvert assembled a group of 24 witnesses to testify in
support of the Minority proposal. Calvert and the hearings subcommittee
decried Irigonegaray's refusal to present pro-science witnesses, going so far
as to label the boycott "unfair" and an effort to "silence the Minority."
The Minority was counting on the scientists' participation to give them
credibility, and the scientists wouldn't play. (I am reminded of a
Bob
Dylan line: "What about that millionaire with the drumsticks in his pants?
He looked so baffled and so bewildered when he played and we didn't dance.)

The science hearings

Calvert carefully orchestrated the Minority presentations on May 5-7, 2005.
He had scripted beforehand an outline of the dialog between the Minority
witnesses and himself, and the Board subcommittee played along with prepared
questions and enthusiastic cheerleading. Calvert placed great emphasis on the
credentials of the Minority witnesses as part of the Minority's strategy of
trying to establish that there is a genuine controversy about evolution.

However, Irigonegaray's cross-examination was not in their control.
His cross-examination strategy developed over the three days. In
general, his questioning and the general nature of the presentations
established a number of points:

A resource giving brief replies to hundreds
of anti-evolutionist claims. A good page to
keep handy when you read the transcripts.

Most of the witnesses were reluctant to discuss their position on the
age of the earth.

Almost all the witnesses stated explicitly that they did not accept common
descent in general, and humankind's biological relationship with
pre-hominids in particular.

Many of the witnesses testified on matters outside their areas of expertise.

Most of the witnesses had read only the Minority report and not Draft 2 of
the standards themselves.

Most of the witnesses were primarily concerned with establishing that
science is equivalent to
philosophical naturalism (and hence atheism),
even though Irigonegaray repeatedly got them to admit that the standards don't
say that. (It's implicit, they said - you have to "read between the lines.")

What little science was actually presented by the witnesses was mostly
either irrelevant to evolution or was standard creationist assertions
unsupported by any data.